As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be "the greatest in modern science". These alleged emails  supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory  suggest:

Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.

One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the Still Waiting For Greenhouse site), commenting:

"In an odd way this is cheering news."

But perhaps the most damaging revelations  the scientific equivalent of the Telegraph's MPs' expenses scandal  are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.

Here are a few tasters.

Manipulation of evidence:

Ive just completed Mikes Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keiths to hide the decline.

Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:

The fact is that we cant account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we cant. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

And the accusations affected the rapid melting of glaciers and ice caps not one little bit. Affected the acidification of the ocean, and the warming of the Arctic not one whit. Just more flap yap from another ignoramous.

Roudy, you are new around here so you wont understand Old Rocks. he only sees in black and white, sceptics are bad warmists are good. any time there is a discrepancy he sides with CAGW no matter how flimsy the evidence for his side.

the climategate emails spawned three major inquiries. two in the UK and one at Penn St. there were quite a few issues but one specific email will suffice as an example overall.

Phil Jones at the University of East Anglia was informed of freedom of information requests for correspondence associated with the IPCC AR4 reportand he immediately sent out a request to the 'Hockey Team' to delete this information to thwart FOI. this could not be a clearer breach of integrity and would seem to enter into the realm of conspiracy to break the law. did the UK inquiries ask Jones if he sent out the email, deleted his correspondence, or had knowledge that others had deleted their information? NO, THEY DID NOT! the investigations stayed well clear of any controversies, and even asked the university (the defendants!) for a list of scientific papers that they should look into. all the while studiously avoiding the questions that the skeptical side had provided in writing.

on the other side of the Atlantic, Michael Mann was asked whether he deleted any documents or facilitated the deletion of documents by anybody else. he replied in the negative and thats where it ended. no checking by the IT to see if the emails had been deleted and reinstated, or even if they were there at all. later testimony at an inquiry at NOAA (scantly publicized) showed that Eugene Wahl had deleted his correspondence immediately after receiving the forwarded request from Mann. but Penn did not find out any of this because they didnt ask penetrating questions and they credulously believed Mann's self serving half answers.

I do about 30 investigations a year for my company, for the autism programs I oversee. But sometimes, due to conflicts of interest, I need to recuse myself and have a third party come in to investigate. If I didnt, Id be out on my ear after 26 years as the investigation would appear tainted to any outside party. Obviously, a team of complete outsiders should have conducted that investigation of the CRU. Nobody buys the conclusions of that investigation except the AGW faithful.

The "exoneration" in the e-mail scandal is akin to David Axelrod investigating Barak Obama for charges of impropriety and declaring him guilty of nothing.

I do about 30 investigations a year for my company, for the autism programs I oversee. But sometimes, due to conflicts of interest, I need to recuse myself and have a third party come in to investigate. If I didnt, Id be out on my ear after 26 years as the investigation would appear tainted to any outside party. Obviously, a team of complete outsiders should have conducted that investigation of the CRU. Nobody buys the conclusions of that investigation except the AGW faithful.

The "exoneration" in the e-mail scandal is akin to David Axelrod investigating Barak Obama for charges of impropriety and declaring him guilty of nothing.

Click to expand...

What it also proves is that not only is the science behind Global Warmng faulty, but that the scientists promoting it were being over zealous to the point of falsification of the facts if not outright fraud.

As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be "the greatest in modern science". These alleged emails  supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory  suggest:

Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.

One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the Still Waiting For Greenhouse site), commenting:

"In an odd way this is cheering news."

But perhaps the most damaging revelations  the scientific equivalent of the Telegraph's MPs' expenses scandal  are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.

Here are a few tasters.

Manipulation of evidence:

Ive just completed Mikes Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keiths to hide the decline.

Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:

The fact is that we cant account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we cant. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

Click to expand...

How dare they "manipulate" the data with REAL temperature data, unlike the deniers who just make shit up out of thin air.

As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be "the greatest in modern science". These alleged emails &#8211; supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory &#8211; suggest:

Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.

One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the Still Waiting For Greenhouse site), commenting:

"In an odd way this is cheering news."

But perhaps the most damaging revelations &#8211; the scientific equivalent of the Telegraph's MPs' expenses scandal &#8211; are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.

Here are a few tasters.

Manipulation of evidence:

I&#8217;ve just completed Mike&#8217;s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith&#8217;s to hide the decline.

Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:

The fact is that we can&#8217;t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can&#8217;t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

Click to expand...

That is yellow journalism if I've ever read it.

"UPDATE: I write about this subject a lot and the threads below my posts often contain an impressive range of informed opinion from readers with solid scientific backgrounds (plus lots of cheap swipes from Libtards &#8211; but, hey, their discomfort and rage are my joy)."

In the end, who cares about a small group of scientists among the greater scientific community. These few don't hold 'the truth' and so their being discredited doesn't change what is true or not true.

As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be "the greatest in modern science". These alleged emails &#8211; supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory &#8211; suggest:

Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.

One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the Still Waiting For Greenhouse site), commenting:

"In an odd way this is cheering news."

But perhaps the most damaging revelations &#8211; the scientific equivalent of the Telegraph's MPs' expenses scandal &#8211; are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.

Here are a few tasters.

Manipulation of evidence:

I&#8217;ve just completed Mike&#8217;s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith&#8217;s to hide the decline.

Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:

The fact is that we can&#8217;t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can&#8217;t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

Click to expand...

How dare they "manipulate" the data with REAL temperature data, unlike the deniers who just make shit up out of thin air.

one of the things Muller mentioned, but I dont think gets enough explanation, is that not only were instrument temperature readings added to the end of proxy series but that they were smoothed together so that no jump in values could be seen!

to reiterate---Briffa's series was cut off at 1960 because it stopped following the measured data, then measured data were added and smoothed together so that no junction could be seen. this is not just mixing apples with oranges, this is grafting orange branches onto an apple tree and calling them all the same fruit.

As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be "the greatest in modern science". These alleged emails  supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory  suggest:

Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.

One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the Still Waiting For Greenhouse site), commenting:

"In an odd way this is cheering news."

But perhaps the most damaging revelations  the scientific equivalent of the Telegraph's MPs' expenses scandal  are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.

Here are a few tasters.

Manipulation of evidence:

Ive just completed Mikes Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keiths to hide the decline.

Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:

The fact is that we cant account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we cant. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

Click to expand...

How dare they "manipulate" the data with REAL temperature data, unlike the deniers who just make shit up out of thin air.

one of the things Muller mentioned, but I dont think gets enough explanation, is that not only were instrument temperature readings added to the end of proxy series but that they were smoothed together so that no jump in values could be seen!

to reiterate---Briffa's series was cut off at 1960 because it stopped following the measured data, then measured data were added and smoothed together so that no junction could be seen. this is not just mixing apples with oranges, this is grafting orange branches onto an apple tree and calling them all the same fruit.

Click to expand...

Basically it shows the worthlessness of proxy data, which is why deniers value proxy data the most!

one of the things Muller mentioned, but I dont think gets enough explanation, is that not only were instrument temperature readings added to the end of proxy series but that they were smoothed together so that no jump in values could be seen!

to reiterate---Briffa's series was cut off at 1960 because it stopped following the measured data, then measured data were added and smoothed together so that no junction could be seen. this is not just mixing apples with oranges, this is grafting orange branches onto an apple tree and calling them all the same fruit.

Click to expand...

Basically it shows the worthlessness of proxy data, which is why deniers value proxy data the most!

Click to expand...

???? why do you think skeptics value proxy data the most?

proxy data, if properly selected, is a good method for getting a general idea of what went on in the past. but it certainly isnt exact, and it doesnt necessarily show one variable to the exclusion of others. for example treerings show the amount of growth in a yearly growing season. temperature and rainfall are both major factors but you cant tell if one or the other caused a good or poor growth in any particular year. there are also many other factors that play a part and can screen or mimic the result you are looking for.

Mann's temperature reconstructions used a statistical method that basically ignored the vast majority of the data and overemphisized a few outlying data points. his methods produce a hockey stick shaped graph with almost any data set, not because of the information but because of the way it is manipulated.

to this first error Mann added a dishonest splicing of a different type of data; measured temperatures. he used the (supposed) reliability of instrumental readings to bolster the acceptance of the widely variable and imprecise results of proxy data. if you add the +/- 2 SD error bars to the data, then you can fit just about any line you want to the data. and the stated uncertainties are very likely to be smaller than the real ones.

the IPCC then came along and made Mann's faulty graph into the poster child of the CAGW movement. the IPCC claimed unreasonable certainty that it was correct, and even though they have been walking back from that pronouncement the damage was already done. without the Hockey Stick Graph, and the total acceptance of it by media, governments and the climate science hierarchy we would not be in the untenable position we are in today where belief in the small amount of warming from CO2 means that you also have to believe in catastrophic consequences down the road that are not supported by the science. if someone questions the absurd predictions that flow from fevered imaginations they are immediately dubbed deniers and considered unworthy of being listened to. classic catch-22.

I believe in the usefulness of proxy data and climate models as tools to garner further understanding. unfortunately they are trotted out and presented as if they are real things being measured. they are not. they are only interpretations made by the authors and are suseptible to any spin or bias that author might have. treerings migh just be measuring rain, or other things. models that are programmed to find CO2 as a climate driver cannot help but find CO2 as a climate driver.

Useful Searches

About USMessageBoard.com

USMessageBoard.com was founded in 2003 with the intent of allowing all voices to be heard. With a wildly diverse community from all sides of the political spectrum, USMessageBoard.com continues to build on that tradition. We welcome everyone despite political and/or religious beliefs, and we continue to encourage the right to free speech.

Come on in and join the discussion. Thank you for stopping by USMessageBoard.com!